Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id GAA20918 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 06:32:19 +0200 Message-Id: <199601100432.GAA20918@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 78F1D699 ; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 5:32:19 +0100 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 18:17:11 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Jorge's X1-X6 (was: lojban zasni) X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199601090013.TAA02110@locke.ccil.org> from "Steven M. Belknap" at Jan 8, 96 05:31:45 pm Content-Length: 1395 Lines: 33 la stivn. cusku di'e > Jorge's X1 - X5 proposals were rejected outright, when it appears > to me that at least two of them had some merit. (The others may also have > merit, but I don't understand the issues) I am suggesting that such > proposals be considered for inclusion in the baseline. If the changes are > too hard, or if there is fear of uncertain consequences, defer them till a > later version of the language. Don't reject possibly meritorious proposals > altogether. You are confusing your roles of book editor and lojban > community leader. I must correct some errors of fact here. Of Jorge's six formalized proposals, X1-X6, the disposition was: X1 (tag+BO): rejected, but a workaround provided in the form of a new JOI, so that "ju'e+tag+BO" would be legal in the sense of proposed "tag+BO". X2 (gi+JOIK): rejected on the grounds that "gi" in an afterthought construction was counterintuitive. I requested new syntax, but no one has proposed any. X3 (jek legal wherever joik is): rejected because insufficiently justified. X4 (merger of bridi and bridi-tail forethought): in the pipeline as change 40. X5 (joiks in sumti only): rejected as eliminating existing grammarical sentences. X6 (loosening of rules for tenses): had problems as written, but a revised -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.